Talk:Mohammad Ahmed Abdullah Saleh Al Hanashi

explanation

I excised this {{cn}} [1] because the existing references do back up the material. Geo Swan (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

explanation...

The image that i have removed from the article violates the basic rules of Wikipedia. It is the own work of a Wikipedia editor who took a primary source combined it with other sources and then interpreted it in the image description. This is a violation of WP:OR. The fact that these are mostly primary sources has also further problems as it does not comply with the policies of BLP's of living people. So i see this topic as taken to the talk page and the image should not be re-included until consensus has been reached. IQinn (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In this edit a contributor justified the removal of referenced material with the edit summary: "remove image because of BLP issue - please discuss on the talk page". I've been frustrated by this particular contributor's overly broad interpretations of the policy on the biography of living persons. This edit is a case in point. When an individual is DEAD BLP no longer applies. Geo Swan (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is dead. Sorry for the confusion. The problem occurred because i removed the image here and similar ones from a few other articles with the same problem but they were mostly about living individuals so i forgot to removed the BLP part in my justification here. Nevertheless i see the violation of WP:OR and i am against inclusion. Do you disagree that it is OR? IQinn (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not agree that it is OR. I never agreed to to your claims that these graphs, or the medical records sections, were "original research", as I belive you are well aware. I continue to think you throw around the term "original research" far too widely, and, frankly, very irresponsibly.

The Guantanamo Standard Operating Procedures clearly state that captives' weights should be monitored closely when their body mass index falls below 18.5. See also [2]. Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly i think simply to disagree with edits without engaging in a civil discussion that is not driven by filibustering, ad hominum arguments or not to engage in discussions at all or to refuse to answer questions even you have been ask in a friendly way a few times is irresponsible and disruptive.

Irresponsible to call this graph and some other of your edits original research? Please do not be offended as the creator of these graphs. I have given detailed reasons why these graphs are problematic and original research. You are welcome to disagree and to engage in a civil discussion but simply to come up with irrelevant arguments or even worst ad hominum arguments on other talk pages is not enough and as this is not the first time and as you have been warned already. I will assume good faith but let me tell you again there are limits to WP:AGF.

Let's focus on the content. These graphs are highly problematic and original research and i have removed them from a few pages and i have given detailed arguments and reasons for that and there are a lot. Please do go to the talk page where i have given the explanation and do argue your point. I would like to ask you to limit your replies to a few arguments at a time and an acceptable size. When we have discussed and find consensus for a point lets move on to the next. I highly welcome civil discussions and i have and will always work towards consensus. 07:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)